| Osborne v. Ohio | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued December 5, 1989 Decided April 18, 1990 | |
| Full case name | Clyde Osborne v. State of Ohio |
| Citations | 495 U.S. 103 (more) 110 S. Ct. 1691; 109 L. Ed. 2d 98 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Conviction affirmed by the Ohio Court of Appeals and Ohio Supreme Court. Defendant appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. |
| Subsequent | Statute upheld; case remanded for new trial. |
| Holding | |
| The First Amendment allows states to outlaw the mere possession, as distinct from the distribution, of child pornography. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White, joined by Rehnquist, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy |
| Concurrence | Blackmun |
| Dissent | Brennan, joined by Marshall, Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I | |
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution allows states to outlaw the possession, as distinct from the distribution, of child pornography.[1] In doing so, the Court extended the holding of New York v. Ferber,[2] which had upheld laws banning the distribution of child pornography against a similar First Amendment challenge, and distinguished Stanley v. Georgia,[3] which had struck down a Georgia law forbidding the possession of pornography by adults in their own homes. The Court also determined that the Ohio law at issue was not overbroad, relying on a narrowing interpretation of the law the Ohio Supreme Court had adopted in prior proceedings in the case; however, because it was unclear whether the state had proved all the elements of the crime, the Court ordered a new trial.